If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hybrid View

C# & .NET

Sir/Madam,

I am a fresher in Computer application(MCA) I have deep knowledge of
C/C++,Operating system(Technical Aspects) And Database Management(Technical
Aspects) I am learning C#.NET
What r job prospects for me ????

Re: .Net

"simon" <substring0NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So what do you think about .NET, Elena, since you have been studying it
(if
>I remember it right)? I am still not convinced that you can code in any
>language and they all will be translated "correctly".
>

Well, it's not Just Any Language. It's any language for which the "intermediate
compiler" has been written to translate your source code into the IL for
the Framework to execute. If someone writes a bad compiler, than that will
cause problems.

However, the key to the really big benefits is in the use of the .Net Framework
(the object model) which you reference in your code. The book I'm currently
working with (Programming ASP.Net by Liberty & Hurwitz) has each example
shown in both C# and VB.Net. I'm working thru the C# examples but the VB
examples are almost identical about 90% of the time except for the curly
braces and semicolons. Mostly you are referencing Framework objects (methods,
events, properties). The Framework object names are identical for all languages.
So the stuff actually looks pretty similar between the two languages.

The Framework object model is huge and I'm not even close to getting a handle
on it.

Studio .Net has even more bells and whistles for debugging than Studio 6
and I'm pretty impressed so far. You're supposed to be able to step thru
SQL Server stored procedures now but I haven't gotten far enough along yet
to try it. As one who has written TONS of SQL procs I can tell you that
is BIG.

If you work with VStudio 6 ASP, you will be pleased with ASP.NET. Currently,
ASP web pages are an unholy mess of HTML, client-side and server-side script.
ASP.NET separates that out. The .aspx file is your HTML page. At the top
is a page directive specifiying the filename of a "CodeBehind" page. Let's
say your web page is Home.aspx. You might have a codebehind page called
Home.cs. in Home.cs you can have regular C# or VB code (not just a scripting
version of the language) and that CodeBehind page is aware of and can perform
programmatic operations on the objects on the HTML page. (i.e. textbox, checkbox,
radio button, dropdown list objects) Of course, the codebehind page can
be written in VB, C#, or JavaScript according to your wishes.

You can code your HTML form objects with "classic" html Textboxes, radio
buttons etc. Or you can use ASP .Net controls. When the web server receives
a request for a page, it reads your code referencing these ASP controls and
translates them into HTML which is then sent to the client. The framework
is aware of the browser level and sends HTML suitable to the level of the
browser (IE 4.0, IE 5.5, Netscape whatever). This gets around the need to
check browser types (IE or Netscape) and levels. It also gives the programmer
a tidier, more consistent programming model to work with. If you do a "View
Source" of the HTML page on the client browser, you will only see HTML -
- not the ASP controls stuff and not some big mash of JavaScript like the
old ASP controls.

I've got a long ways to go before I'm ready for any cert exams, but I keep
plugging along. I truly hope this is all worth the effort - - meaning I
hope that .NET does become accepted in the marketplace. Microsoft has really
bet the farm on this so if they don't drop the ball or piss off too many
customers with their licensing schemes, this should be worth it. Speaking
just from the point of a developer, this is a great upgrade in features and
functionality.

Re: .Net

This is excellent info, Elenia. Making me feel a lot better about my current
decision of hitting .Net hard.
I was laid of in January and the year prior to that I had been slowly moved
away from the Microsoft path. Boy am I regretting that. Long story short: my
previous company had changed focus and I had decided there was no place for
me in it. Found a really cool position and got an offer. Current company
offered a killer promotion with supposedly the power to choose the products
that I felt were best suited to create the solution. I let the other offer
go. Bad, BAD choice. I slowly got sucked away from what I thought was best.
Pulled into this *crap* product called BroadVision. Note to others: never
use that product. Anyway, got worse. Got pulled into HPUX world. Then Linux.
During that whole time the .Net beta was going on and I was mostly
disappointed by the fact that VB sounded so radically different. Didn't
pursue it much. Anyway, of course other bad decisions were made at that
company and it ended up laying off the whole workforce, other than the execs
with golden parachutes.

Spent the next 5 months casually looking for a job and picking up Java. Main
reason was the price. But ****, after being spoiled by MS tools its rather
hard going to the archaic text editors and ponderous IDEs used for
development in that world. Saw the light a couple weeks ago. At no point had
I realized that the .Net framework CAME with compilers for C# and VB.Net.
Been rather ecstatic over it ever since. So, been ramping on C# using
SharpDevelop as an editor, the Oreilly C# book by the same Liberty that
wrote the ASP.net book, and of course late night perusing of the SDK itself.

I'd certainly like to hear some opinions on what I find to be some holes in
C#. While I like it for the most part, and will prolly like it more as time
goes on, I really think some things are missing:
1) function templates. this is just so huge. I understand the addition of
said generics may be included in a future rev but man, I just don't think it
should be released without this.

2)const modifier in a parameter definition. Sometimes I just really want to
be able to guarantee that a reference type will not be modified in a method

3)static modifier for local variable. sometimes it nice to have a var hold
its value even after going out of scope. sure, you can use a private class
variable but it's just not as clean and doesn't seem to encapsulate as well

next three are prolly just cause I haven't dug deep enough yet

4) why is the console writeline and write methods so similar to C printf
functions? what is up with the substitution? I have heard hints that this
allows some cool formatting technique similar to style sheets but haven't
come across it so far

5) the inheritance keywords seem kludgy. I understand there is some
versioning reason for overrides and new, but I just don't think this is a
big deal for most shops. a keyword on the base class that would enforce the
need for these keywords rather than ALWAYS needing them would have been
nice. I suppose after a couple months of using c# this won't be that big a
deal but right now it really seems strange.

6) the use of the ref keyword in the calling code as well as the parameter
definition. seems strange they want to be explicit about this for value
types but on the other hand don't want to allow readonly reference types as
in 2) above.

couple other things. going through even the system namespace I was a little
surprised that exceptions are not in their own sub namespace. seems weird to
include them with other objects. also, not much access to hardware level. no
classes to work with the serial port nor any options in the IO classes to
use a comm port. and where the heck is support for directX

prolly more questions but I've only been at this for a little over a week
Regardless, I dig C# way better than java. And looking over VB.net, I think
my old friend VB is dead. But it still seems better than MFC C++. Heh, and
once I buy a copy of VS.net or MSDN universal, coding will prolly get a lot
easier. I think ASP.net is going to be a much better path than EJB.

Anyway, wanted to thank you for some glimpses into what I'll be digging into
next. SQL stuff sounds very cool.

-Sean

"Elena" <egermano@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3d2b2d7f$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> "simon" <substring0NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >So what do you think about .NET, Elena, since you have been studying it
> (if
> >I remember it right)? I am still not convinced that you can code in any
> >language and they all will be translated "correctly".
> >
>
> Well, it's not Just Any Language. It's any language for which the
"intermediate
> compiler" has been written to translate your source code into the IL for
> the Framework to execute. If someone writes a bad compiler, than that
will
> cause problems.
>
> However, the key to the really big benefits is in the use of the .Net
Framework
> (the object model) which you reference in your code. The book I'm
currently
> working with (Programming ASP.Net by Liberty & Hurwitz) has each example
> shown in both C# and VB.Net. I'm working thru the C# examples but the VB
> examples are almost identical about 90% of the time except for the curly
> braces and semicolons. Mostly you are referencing Framework objects
(methods,
> events, properties). The Framework object names are identical for all
languages.
> So the stuff actually looks pretty similar between the two languages.
>
> The Framework object model is huge and I'm not even close to getting a
handle
> on it.
>
> Studio .Net has even more bells and whistles for debugging than Studio 6
> and I'm pretty impressed so far. You're supposed to be able to step thru
> SQL Server stored procedures now but I haven't gotten far enough along yet
> to try it. As one who has written TONS of SQL procs I can tell you that
> is BIG.
>
> If you work with VStudio 6 ASP, you will be pleased with ASP.NET.
Currently,
> ASP web pages are an unholy mess of HTML, client-side and server-side
script.
> ASP.NET separates that out. The .aspx file is your HTML page. At the
top
> is a page directive specifiying the filename of a "CodeBehind" page.
Let's
> say your web page is Home.aspx. You might have a codebehind page called
> Home.cs. in Home.cs you can have regular C# or VB code (not just a
scripting
> version of the language) and that CodeBehind page is aware of and can
perform
> programmatic operations on the objects on the HTML page. (i.e. textbox,
checkbox,
> radio button, dropdown list objects) Of course, the codebehind page can
> be written in VB, C#, or JavaScript according to your wishes.
>
> You can code your HTML form objects with "classic" html Textboxes, radio
> buttons etc. Or you can use ASP .Net controls. When the web server
receives
> a request for a page, it reads your code referencing these ASP controls
and
> translates them into HTML which is then sent to the client. The framework
> is aware of the browser level and sends HTML suitable to the level of the
> browser (IE 4.0, IE 5.5, Netscape whatever). This gets around the need to
> check browser types (IE or Netscape) and levels. It also gives the
programmer
> a tidier, more consistent programming model to work with. If you do a
"View
> Source" of the HTML page on the client browser, you will only see HTML -
> - not the ASP controls stuff and not some big mash of JavaScript like the
> old ASP controls.
>
> I've got a long ways to go before I'm ready for any cert exams, but I keep
> plugging along. I truly hope this is all worth the effort - - meaning I
> hope that .NET does become accepted in the marketplace. Microsoft has
really
> bet the farm on this so if they don't drop the ball or piss off too many
> customers with their licensing schemes, this should be worth it. Speaking
> just from the point of a developer, this is a great upgrade in features
and
> functionality.
>
> Elena

Re: .Net

Elena,

Wow! You asked for a fish and you get the whole aquarium, haha. Thank you
so much for the great insight. Unlike many of the whiners on the .NET newsgroups
(that I visit very often), I do value your opinion. =)

As of the "unholy mess of HTML, client-side and server-side script", that's
exactly what we are doing now using Visual Interdev and it is a nightmare
to debug the code. We (the developers in our shop) need to spend time to
explore the .NET capability. Unfortunately, we are so tied down with current
development projects. My VS.NET (final release) CDs are still sitting on
my desk, gathering dust, ha. Hmmm, maybe I can clone myself... hahaha.

I like the SQL debugging capability, and I wonder if it works for PL/SQL
also? I hate to debug PL/SQL code.

But then, I am a strong proponent to keep complex business logics OUT of
stored procedures. Instead, they should be in middle tier components that
are both front-end and back-end independent.

I bought a book from Wrox called Fast Track C#, and it is very good. The
hardest thing for us the developers to learn on .NET is not the language
syntax. The learning curve is actually on getting familiar with the .NET
framework.

As I have said before, Microsoft is not going to fall, and .NET is here to
stay. So you are ahead of many people already. =)

Please keep us updated of what you learn, and I will do the same as soon
as I install the software and dig into it.

Thank you very much.

simon.

"Elena" <egermano@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"simon" <substring0NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>So what do you think about .NET, Elena, since you have been studying it
>(if
>>I remember it right)? I am still not convinced that you can code in any
>>language and they all will be translated "correctly".
>>
>
>Well, it's not Just Any Language. It's any language for which the "intermediate
>compiler" has been written to translate your source code into the IL for
>the Framework to execute. If someone writes a bad compiler, than that will
>cause problems.
>
>However, the key to the really big benefits is in the use of the .Net Framework
>(the object model) which you reference in your code. The book I'm currently
>working with (Programming ASP.Net by Liberty & Hurwitz) has each example
>shown in both C# and VB.Net. I'm working thru the C# examples but the VB
>examples are almost identical about 90% of the time except for the curly
>braces and semicolons. Mostly you are referencing Framework objects (methods,
>events, properties). The Framework object names are identical for all languages.
> So the stuff actually looks pretty similar between the two languages.
>
>The Framework object model is huge and I'm not even close to getting a handle
>on it.
>
>Studio .Net has even more bells and whistles for debugging than Studio 6
>and I'm pretty impressed so far. You're supposed to be able to step thru
>SQL Server stored procedures now but I haven't gotten far enough along yet
>to try it. As one who has written TONS of SQL procs I can tell you that
>is BIG.
>
>If you work with VStudio 6 ASP, you will be pleased with ASP.NET. Currently,
>ASP web pages are an unholy mess of HTML, client-side and server-side script.
> ASP.NET separates that out. The .aspx file is your HTML page. At the
top
>is a page directive specifiying the filename of a "CodeBehind" page. Let's
>say your web page is Home.aspx. You might have a codebehind page called
>Home.cs. in Home.cs you can have regular C# or VB code (not just a scripting
>version of the language) and that CodeBehind page is aware of and can perform
>programmatic operations on the objects on the HTML page. (i.e. textbox,
checkbox,
>radio button, dropdown list objects) Of course, the codebehind page can
>be written in VB, C#, or JavaScript according to your wishes.
>
>You can code your HTML form objects with "classic" html Textboxes, radio
>buttons etc. Or you can use ASP .Net controls. When the web server receives
>a request for a page, it reads your code referencing these ASP controls
and
>translates them into HTML which is then sent to the client. The framework
>is aware of the browser level and sends HTML suitable to the level of the
>browser (IE 4.0, IE 5.5, Netscape whatever). This gets around the need
to
>check browser types (IE or Netscape) and levels. It also gives the programmer
>a tidier, more consistent programming model to work with. If you do a "View
>Source" of the HTML page on the client browser, you will only see HTML -
>- not the ASP controls stuff and not some big mash of JavaScript like the
>old ASP controls.
>
>I've got a long ways to go before I'm ready for any cert exams, but I keep
>plugging along. I truly hope this is all worth the effort - - meaning I
>hope that .NET does become accepted in the marketplace. Microsoft has really
>bet the farm on this so if they don't drop the ball or piss off too many
>customers with their licensing schemes, this should be worth it. Speaking
>just from the point of a developer, this is a great upgrade in features
and
>functionality.
>
>Elena

Re: .Net

"Sean Newton" <bouldersean2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'd certainly like to hear some opinions on what I find to be some holes
in
>C#. While I like it for the most part, and will prolly like it more as time
>goes on, I really think some things are missing:
>1) function templates. this is just so huge. I understand the addition of
>said generics may be included in a future rev but man, I just don't think
it
> should be released without this.
----------------------------------------------------------
Well established Template or Factory patterns could serve as a good way of
fulfilling this in the interim.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>2)const modifier in a parameter definition. Sometimes I just really want
to
>be able to guarantee that a reference type will not be modified in a method
>
----------------------------------------------------------
You could pass a cloned instance.
----------------------------------------------------------
>3)static modifier for local variable. sometimes it nice to have a var hold
>its value even after going out of scope. sure, you can use a private class
>variable but it's just not as clean and doesn't seem to encapsulate as well
----------------------------------------------------------
This could violate the principle of pre and post conditions at the method
level and could be a catalyst for subtle bugs since the exact state of method
level members could not be guaranteed.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>next three are prolly just cause I haven't dug deep enough yet
>
>4) why is the console writeline and write methods so similar to C printf
>functions? what is up with the substitution? I have heard hints that this
>allows some cool formatting technique similar to style sheets but haven't
>come across it so far
>
----------------------------------------------------------
The similarities are there since C# has a more direct C++ heritage. Through
the use of formatting objects, you could have reuseable string format libraries
that allowed you to output strings in a consistent way. This concept extends
to many .NET Framework Classes that implement the .ToString method. It has
performance impact in that it can reduce/elminate explicit string concatenation
and reduce bugs that can arise in redoing string format procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------
>5) the inheritance keywords seem kludgy. I understand there is some
>versioning reason for overrides and new, but I just don't think this is
a
>big deal for most shops. a keyword on the base class that would enforce
the
>need for these keywords rather than ALWAYS needing them would have been
>nice. I suppose after a couple months of using c# this won't be that big
a
>deal but right now it really seems strange.
>
>6) the use of the ref keyword in the calling code as well as the parameter
>definition. seems strange they want to be explicit about this for value
>types but on the other hand don't want to allow readonly reference types
as
>in 2) above.
>
>
>couple other things. going through even the system namespace I was a little
>surprised that exceptions are not in their own sub namespace. seems weird
to
>include them with other objects.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is a consistent .NET pattern in that the classes related to a particular
domain of functionality share proximity. This allows tools such as intellisense
to assist you in effectively/intuitively locating the a class without searching
all over the place for it. It is also a better form of information design
in that the information you will likely need within a functionality domain
(e.g. data access) will be there in the form of pertainent exceptions, enumerations,
classes and other types that work together. Logically, all exceptions have
common hierarchy but they diverge into functional domains.
----------------------------------------------------------
also, not much access to hardware level. no
>classes to work with the serial port nor any options in the IO classes to
>use a comm port. and where the heck is support for directX
----------------------------------------------------------
The performance difference between C++ or COM access to these resources versus
.NET may make the initial effort to expose these services prohibitive. Some
would argue that the main thrust of .NET is web and business applications
where realtime, hardware and system level stuff would be better served by
C++ at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>prolly more questions but I've only been at this for a little over a week
>Regardless, I dig C# way better than java. And looking over VB.net, I think
>my old friend VB is dead. But it still seems better than MFC C++. Heh, and
>once I buy a copy of VS.net or MSDN universal, coding will prolly get a
lot
>easier. I think ASP.net is going to be a much better path than EJB.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
I've been at this for almost two years (since around October/Nov 2000) and
it definately gets better. I pushed for .NET at the organization (Dec-Jan
2002) I'm with and has been the only one to fight and use it, thus far. 6
months later, I have a full featured backend system to show for it that was
developed relatively well, runs fast and has no runtime issues. No the organization
has approved MSDN subscriptions for all developers and they are moving to
.NET (slowly but surely) based on the productivity and functionality successes.
.NET is cheaper too since you have fewer server reboots, less support requirements
and the possibility of using the same server for web and backend applications
(memory and processor provided). This is part of the vision of .NET and if
it continues will bring about an age of much more advanced applications for
the developers that focus on architecture, elegant implementation and mastery
of Framework Components integration over custom coding. C# is the best language
for this due to it's reduced verbosity, because when using many of the Framework
Classes, it helps to have smaller code footprints that can be easily understood
as opposed to heavily coded classes that require extensive documentation
and navigation. While this age may be short lived due to changing technology,
it is good to experience it now. The future of .NET is one where the end
user, business and consumer all get what they want and applications are more
likely to have an inherently superior design to what went before. I can see
.NET coding evolving towards more declaritive style and implementation with
the advancement in attributes, delegates and generics.
----------------------------------------------------------
>Anyway, wanted to thank you for some glimpses into what I'll be digging
into
>next. SQL stuff sounds very cool.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
It actually works well for SQL Server stuff, you simply enable SQL Debugging
in your project configuration properties, go to the Server Explorer, open
up the stored procedure, set the break point and you are off.

There is a good video on msdn.microsoft.com/theshow that goes into debugging
if you like the video stuff. Also, don't discount some of the thicker Microsoft
Press Book. I read both of the Jesse Liberty books and found them to be okay,
but too basic (perhaps it was my involvement in beta). Anyway, 3 good books:
Applied .NET Framework Programming, Programming Windows with C# and Programming
.NET. The latter book is like the master volume on ASP .NET is much more
thorough in my opinion that the Jesse Liberty book. It is also written by
more of a Microsoft Insider. The Applied .NET book is more geared towards
advanced topic in .NET and I found it invaluable in smoothing some of my
architectural rough edges in implementing more consistent, sophisticated
functionality. The Windows book goes indepth into programming Windows Forms
by hand and teaches alot of valuable C# concepts along the way. I have over
20 .NET books (many accumulated over the beta cycle), but these are my most
referred when I have hard questions or need a refresher (deep or broad).

There are two guys in particular who's columns on .NET I've found the most
valuable: Juval Lowy and Bill Wagner. A good place to find them is at the
Visual Studio Magazine website. Juval is really a master and his insights
can carry you very far.
----------------------------------------------------------
>-Sean
>
>"Elena" <egermano@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:3d2b2d7f$1@10.1.10.29...
>>
>> "simon" <substring0NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >So what do you think about .NET, Elena, since you have been studying
it
>> (if
>> >I remember it right)? I am still not convinced that you can code in
any
>> >language and they all will be translated "correctly".
>> >
>>
>> Well, it's not Just Any Language. It's any language for which the
>"intermediate
>> compiler" has been written to translate your source code into the IL for
>> the Framework to execute. If someone writes a bad compiler, than that
>will
>> cause problems.
>>
>> However, the key to the really big benefits is in the use of the .Net
>Framework
>> (the object model) which you reference in your code. The book I'm
>currently
>> working with (Programming ASP.Net by Liberty & Hurwitz) has each example
>> shown in both C# and VB.Net. I'm working thru the C# examples but the
VB
>> examples are almost identical about 90% of the time except for the curly
>> braces and semicolons. Mostly you are referencing Framework objects
>(methods,
>> events, properties). The Framework object names are identical for all
>languages.
>> So the stuff actually looks pretty similar between the two languages.
>>
>> The Framework object model is huge and I'm not even close to getting a
>handle
>> on it.
>>
>> Studio .Net has even more bells and whistles for debugging than Studio
6
>> and I'm pretty impressed so far. You're supposed to be able to step thru
>> SQL Server stored procedures now but I haven't gotten far enough along
yet
>> to try it. As one who has written TONS of SQL procs I can tell you that
>> is BIG.
>>
>> If you work with VStudio 6 ASP, you will be pleased with ASP.NET.
>Currently,
>> ASP web pages are an unholy mess of HTML, client-side and server-side
>script.
>> ASP.NET separates that out. The .aspx file is your HTML page. At the
>top
>> is a page directive specifiying the filename of a "CodeBehind" page.
>Let's
>> say your web page is Home.aspx. You might have a codebehind page called
>> Home.cs. in Home.cs you can have regular C# or VB code (not just a
>scripting
>> version of the language) and that CodeBehind page is aware of and can
>perform
>> programmatic operations on the objects on the HTML page. (i.e. textbox,
>checkbox,
>> radio button, dropdown list objects) Of course, the codebehind page can
>> be written in VB, C#, or JavaScript according to your wishes.
>>
>> You can code your HTML form objects with "classic" html Textboxes, radio
>> buttons etc. Or you can use ASP .Net controls. When the web server
>receives
>> a request for a page, it reads your code referencing these ASP controls
>and
>> translates them into HTML which is then sent to the client. The framework
>> is aware of the browser level and sends HTML suitable to the level of
the
>> browser (IE 4.0, IE 5.5, Netscape whatever). This gets around the need
to
>> check browser types (IE or Netscape) and levels. It also gives the
>programmer
>> a tidier, more consistent programming model to work with. If you do a
>"View
>> Source" of the HTML page on the client browser, you will only see HTML
-
>> - not the ASP controls stuff and not some big mash of JavaScript like
the
>> old ASP controls.
>>
>> I've got a long ways to go before I'm ready for any cert exams, but I
keep
>> plugging along. I truly hope this is all worth the effort - - meaning
I
>> hope that .NET does become accepted in the marketplace. Microsoft has
>really
>> bet the farm on this so if they don't drop the ball or piss off too many
>> customers with their licensing schemes, this should be worth it. Speaking
>> just from the point of a developer, this is a great upgrade in features
>and
>> functionality.
>>
>> Elena
>
>

Re: .Net

I would weight into this, but it has drifted from a careers conversation.
I will say that, Sean, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with Java
and its IDEs. I've used if for a few years now with a pretty good IDE.
I dread it everytime I have to go back to VB6 (language and IDE). Also,
the current crop of Java IDEs is very good. A problem with the Java world
is that alot of people like basic editors and build their own scripts. This
limits how many IDEs can be sold. So why build it if they won't come? I
think the NetBeans and Eclipse Ideas are great and are pretty good for free.
And they appeal to both low-levelers and those who want it all provided
to them (of course one might have to step up to the paying version). (Of
course I have no quotes for this so, Patrick, don't ask)

Stepping back into careers. MS.Net is a pretty good IDE and tool. It is
yet to be seen how .Net will be accepted. It seems to have some acceptance
but mostly in established MS Shops or those already using MS tools. Since
I don't see Windows disappearing real soon more MS Shops will move to .Net.
I don't see many others moving to MS.Net from non-MS tools. So the usage
of MS.Net, and thus careers in it, depends on a few things and how they pan
out:

1. The rise and widespreed acceptance of Linux - will it?
2. Windows and how the licensing and closedness and new (future) security
'features' (Paladium) affects its acceptance.
3. How well will the Open Source version of .Net succeed and how useful will
it be?
4. Which FUD and which truths will be believed and accepted?
5. When and how well will the economy recover?
6. How many MS shops will move to MS.Net and when will they do it?

We can speculate on how this will work out (and many have). And anyone trying
to answer them is just guessing. But that really isn't for this discussion
group. I would advise to keep your eyes up and open while proceeding with
MS.Net.

Re: .Net

>I was laid of in January and the year prior to that I had been slowly >moved
away from the Microsoft path. Boy am I regretting that.

I'm sorry that job didn't work out but you shouldn't kick yourself too hard.
It's not really "wrong" to pursue the Unix/Java path. When I joined my
current consulting firm, their client base was 50/50 Microsoft/Java. Now
they're about 95% Java and have no career path for Microsoft-flavored people.
And learning Java wouldn't help me because they would never market a Java
newbie to one of their clients. So they continue to hire Java programmers
and when my current assignment ends, I'll be looking for work.

Now I think our company's business got so lopsided because they've become
dependent upon large automotive companies for work. The really big companies
have had Unix boxes for 20 years and when it came time to select servers
for client/server and web stuff, Unix made sense. Their sys admins understood
it, they were accustomed to paying big bucks for HP or Sun hardware and software,
it "fit" their environment.

Microsoft is a much better solution for small-to-medium sized companies.
The price of a Solaris box and an Oracle license is completely out of their
range but a wintel server is not. So Microsoft solutions fit much better
here. I've done my time in the Fortune 50 and I'm ok with working for much
smaller companies. But in this crummy economic climate, no one's going out
of their way to adopt new technology of any kind so not much is happening.
I'm trying to be positive about this because it gives me time to get up
on .Net stuff so I'll be ready when they DO start hiring.

>>But ****, after being spoiled by MS tools its rather
>hard going to the archaic text editors and ponderous IDEs used for
>development in that world.

It never ceases to amaze me that Unix professionals will rave about the power
of vi and grep. Many of them are so incredibly clueless. If you get a chance
to work with things like WebSphere then at least you're in the ballpark.
But again, I associate this with very large staffs of programmers that have
time to dink around with these crummy command-line tools. Smaller companies
need their systems delivered MUCH more quickly and at the same time you have
to ferret out the business requirements and do the entire development lifecycle
thing working by yourself or with one or two others so you need PRODUCTIVITY
TOOLS.
>I'd certainly like to hear some opinions on what I find to be some holes
in C#.

Unfortunately, I am nowhere near wise enough in the ways of .Net to start
critiquing how they designed feature a, why they did b instead of c, etc.
They clearly did not slap this stuff together over a weekend or two so I
hesitate to start complaining until I've spent a lot more time with it.
However I can strongly recommend the microsoft .net newsgroups. You can
reach them over the web at:

or you can subscribe thru your email/newsreader as always. Under languages
category is a Csharp group, there's about 25 newsgroups for the Framework
and of course several groups dedicated to VisualStudio .Net. They've got
some people that really know their stuff, including Microsoft employees so
you can probably get answers to your questions there.

Re: .Net

"simon" <substring0NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Elena,
>
>Unlike many of the whiners on the .NET newsgroups
>(that I visit very often), I do value your opinion. =)
>

I was reading some of the .net newsgroups pretty regularly but I stopped
for a while because I wanted to spend more time getting a grasp of the basics.
For me, it doesn't help to read a lot of people's specific programming scenarios
if I'm vague on the general concepts and environment. I just get confused.
I will get back to it though because if you have time to sort the wheat
from the chaff, you can pick up some excellent pieces of information.

So what the heck are they whining about? Is it still "Boo Hoo, they changed
VB?" or "Boo Hoo, Visual Studio ought to cost $75" or have they moved on
to something else?

>As I have said before, Microsoft is not going to fall, and .NET is here
to
>stay.

Jeez I hope so. The general economic climate is making things pretty hard
for IT companies right now so I'm having a hard time predicting when .Net
is going to take off.

Re: .Net

> And learning Java wouldn't help me because they would never market a Java
>newbie to one of their clients. So they continue to hire Java programmers
>and when my current assignment ends, I'll be looking for work.

I'm sorry they are short sighted and won't help you out moving to Java.
>Microsoft is a much better solution for small-to-medium sized companies.
> The price of a Solaris box and an Oracle license is completely out of their
>range but a wintel server is not.

How about a linux-tel? I would say it is even more in their price range.
Less doesn't only mean Microsoft. I can do Java and Linux and come out
costing less than an MS solution.

>Smaller companies need their systems delivered MUCH more quickly so you
>need PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS.

Re: .Net

Michael, thanks for a fantastic response. Couple comments below.
> >1) function templates. this is just so huge. I understand the addition of
> >said generics may be included in a future rev but man, I just don't think
> it
> > should be released without this.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Well established Template or Factory patterns could serve as a good way of
> fulfilling this in the interim.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Right. I've considered and come up with a couple ways of getting around the
problem but none of them seem particulary type safe.
> >
> >2)const modifier in a parameter definition. Sometimes I just really want
> to
> >be able to guarantee that a reference type will not be modified in a
method
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> You could pass a cloned instance.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, thought of this and probably will use it where required but a) it's a
hack and b) it's a hack with a performance hit and c) kinda seems to break
encapsulation in the sense that I have to worry about what is going on in
the black box. myMethod(const object myObject) as a prototype tells me i
don't have to worry.
> >3)static modifier for local variable. sometimes it nice to have a var
hold
> >its value even after going out of scope. sure, you can use a private
class
> >variable but it's just not as clean and doesn't seem to encapsulate as
well
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> This could violate the principle of pre and post conditions at the method
> level and could be a catalyst for subtle bugs since the exact state of
method
> level members could not be guaranteed.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
not sure that I grok this. could possibly apply the same logic to
re-entering an object? I dunno. not that big a deal. just occasionaly use
this method for counting method calls. nothing hugely serious.
> >
> >next three are prolly just cause I haven't dug deep enough yet
> >
> >4) why is the console writeline and write methods so similar to C printf
> >functions? what is up with the substitution? I have heard hints that this
> >allows some cool formatting technique similar to style sheets but haven't
> >come across it so far
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The similarities are there since C# has a more direct C++ heritage.
Through
> the use of formatting objects, you could have reuseable string format
libraries
> that allowed you to output strings in a consistent way. This concept
extends
> to many .NET Framework Classes that implement the .ToString method. It has
> performance impact in that it can reduce/elminate explicit string
concatenation
> and reduce bugs that can arise in redoing string format procedures.
right. i figured there were reasons. seems a bit kludgy whilst learning but
I have a feeling I'll appreciate it in the future.
> >couple other things. going through even the system namespace I was a
little
> >surprised that exceptions are not in their own sub namespace. seems weird
> to
> >include them with other objects.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> This is a consistent .NET pattern in that the classes related to a
particular
> domain of functionality share proximity. This allows tools such as
intellisense
> to assist you in effectively/intuitively locating the a class without
searching
> all over the place for it. It is also a better form of information design
> in that the information you will likely need within a functionality domain
> (e.g. data access) will be there in the form of pertainent exceptions,
enumerations,
> classes and other types that work together. Logically, all exceptions have
> common hierarchy but they diverge into functional domains.
hmmm, this one is purely opinion i think. I personally think namespaces for
exceptions are a lot cleaner. purely opinion. the designers and others feel
differently. in the end, not a big deal, doesn't affect functionality.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> also, not much access to hardware level. no
> >classes to work with the serial port nor any options in the IO classes to
> >use a comm port. and where the heck is support for directX
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The performance difference between C++ or COM access to these resources
versus
> NET may make the initial effort to expose these services prohibitive. Some
> would argue that the main thrust of .NET is web and business applications
> where realtime, hardware and system level stuff would be better served by
> C++ at this time.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
not sure i understand this. file manipulation for direct file access or even
database ultimately leads to hardware. same with guis. if this is true i'd
have to interpret your statements as meaning these operations could also
have serious performance hits. I sure hope this isn't so. and for the most
part, serial coms are far slower than file access or gui
further, the statement that .NET is for web and business apps troubles me
some. I mean, if that was the point of C#, no biggy. If it is the point of
..NET, then i'd say some of the people complaining about vb.net have valid
reasons. if c++ is now the only language in which to do apps outside this
niche. make no mistake, I am indeed enjoying c# and .NET both. however, I am
amazed to some degree that MS has made this hammer. It's not working on
everything As with java, i do wonder how it *really* applies to
stand-alone, applications. not everything is a distributed multi-tier
solution.
finally, just to hit the serial point a little harder, this can even be
required for web and business apps. sometimes computers do link to devices
to poll data (say a weather device) and in turn report the data in a web
format.

again, thanks very much for the feedback. It was great stuff and gives me a
lot to look forward to.

Re: .Net

> I would weight into this, but it has drifted from a careers conversation.
> I will say that, Sean, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with Java
> and its IDEs. I've used if for a few years now with a pretty good IDE.
> I dread it everytime I have to go back to VB6 (language and IDE). Also,
> the current crop of Java IDEs is very good. A problem with the Java world
> is that alot of people like basic editors and build their own scripts.
This
> limits how many IDEs can be sold. So why build it if they won't come? I
> think the NetBeans and Eclipse Ideas are great and are pretty good for
free.
> And they appeal to both low-levelers and those who want it all provided
> to them (of course one might have to step up to the paying version). (Of
> course I have no quotes for this so, Patrick, don't ask)
Mark, I didn't really have a bad experience with Linux or Java. I totally
dig dinking with Linux for fun and hobby. And when I started picking up
java, i also really like it as a language. It is trying to imagine myself
being productive at either that I have a problem with. Don't get me wrong, I
started coding back in the early 80's, straight basic on TIs then assembler
on C-64s. C++ on Amigas. Didn't like MFC so when I made the move to Windows
I checked out VB and really like it (end of VB3, start of VB4... '94-ish?).
Anyway, I've played with line consoles and scripts and such, I appreciate a
GUI. I appreciate tools I can point an click to do things rather than
cryptic messages. At least when I'm working for money and a dealine. In my
spare time, for fun, I go back to the C-64 and get still code assembler

I disagree with your comments on the worth of either Forte or NetBeans.
Purely opinion, mind you. I simply am astounded that starting either up on
my box takes 55MB of RAM. And some say MS creates bloatware? Further, both
of these have shown me exactly what I can expect performance wise from Java
for a GUI. I am not impressed. I do admit they are indeed more productive
when creating a GUI, GUI code sucks in a plain text editor. For most other
stuff I stick to EditPlus. Conversely, playing with SharpDevelop on the MS
side for C#, the performance is great. I had planned on checking into
eclipse but I found out the .Net framework came with compilers and decided
to check it out and haven't gone back yet.

I also have some serious qualms about the performance of Java. I know there
*has* to be some products out there that really kick butt. I just haven't
come across them. As I said, I'm not overly impressed with Forte nor
NetBeans. Playing around with some of Oracle's java based stuff like IFS
*really* troubled me about the performce. I am just wary of something purely
interpreted across multiple levels. I can't imagine they have optimized well
for all platforms. Sunspot compiler or not. Heck, this was the same argument
used against VB for many years. Now with Java it's "ok"? Anyway, a final
nail in the coffin and totally personal and absolutely irrelevant: I don't
like Scott McNeally. I don't like Sun. I, for the most part, side with MS on
the whole DOJ issue. I have NOT been harmed as a consumer by any MS business
practices. And if I was an investor, I'd applaud them. I do not believe that
either Scott or Sun cares about openess or standards. I believe they simply
would like to be in Microsoft's position. Rather than creating a suite of
applications that can compete, they litigate. Whatever happened to the
Offic-stylee suite built completely in Java? If they really want to compete,
make a killer consumer OS, make some fantastic developer tools, and a
compelling office suite. All right. 'nuff of this soapbox. I'm not really
trying to start a flamewar. I'm stating my opinion. It really would be a
waste of time to try an counter any of these as you are not going to sway me
one bit

One last comment on Linux. I like playing with it. I like digging into the
kernel and mucking around. I don't think it'll become much in day-to-day use
until a solid GUI gets made. KDE and GNOME are both ok, but I just don't
think xwindows is that great a technology as an underpin. What is the Apple
OS X gui based on? Is that completely from scratch? Maybe they should sell
it to all the Linux and Unix vendors
>
> Stepping back into careers. MS.Net is a pretty good IDE and tool. It is
> yet to be seen how .Net will be accepted. It seems to have some
acceptance
> but mostly in established MS Shops or those already using MS tools. Since
> I don't see Windows disappearing real soon more MS Shops will move to
..Net.
> I don't see many others moving to MS.Net from non-MS tools. So the usage
> of MS.Net, and thus careers in it, depends on a few things and how they
pan
> out:
>
> 1. The rise and widespreed acceptance of Linux - will it?
> 2. Windows and how the licensing and closedness and new (future) security
> 'features' (Paladium) affects its acceptance.
> 3. How well will the Open Source version of .Net succeed and how useful
will
> it be?
> 4. Which FUD and which truths will be believed and accepted?
> 5. When and how well will the economy recover?
> 6. How many MS shops will move to MS.Net and when will they do it?
>
> We can speculate on how this will work out (and many have). And anyone
trying
> to answer them is just guessing. But that really isn't for this
discussion
> group. I would advise to keep your eyes up and open while proceeding with
> MS.Net.

You are rather correct on all the above. I've been out of a job now for 6
months. I have no leads. The job boards suck. My own personal network of
people I know is also laid off for the most part. No real hope of things
getting better tomorrow. However, I have to believe that things will get
better in the future. So I take the MS route. Have you *SEEN* the crazy ***
requirements companies have right now? Going the java route, there is no way
I can compete on paper when some HR drone is checking off its little list of
requirements against my resume for java-based positions. At least the MS
route, I can *leverage* previous MS experience.

Finally, as Elena states later in this thread, MS products are used on the
whole in smaller to mid-size businesses. These are the companies I like to
work with.

Thanks for your input. We differ in opinions on some things but I respect
that.

Re: .Net

> I'm sorry that job didn't work out but you shouldn't kick yourself too
hard.
> It's not really "wrong" to pursue the Unix/Java path. When I joined my
> current consulting firm, their client base was 50/50 Microsoft/Java. Now
> they're about 95% Java and have no career path for Microsoft-flavored
people.
> And learning Java wouldn't help me because they would never market a Java
> newbie to one of their clients. So they continue to hire Java programmers
> and when my current assignment ends, I'll be looking for work.

eh, shite happens. i can't say I didn't see it coming. they paid me well and
i had fun for the most part. great team of people, too. the sojourn down
linux/java/broadvision was interesting if not terribly productive.
> Microsoft is a much better solution for small-to-medium sized companies.
> The price of a Solaris box and an Oracle license is completely out of
their
> range but a wintel server is not. So Microsoft solutions fit much better
> here. I've done my time in the Fortune 50 and I'm ok with working for
much
> smaller companies. But in this crummy economic climate, no one's going
out
> of their way to adopt new technology of any kind so not much is happening.
> I'm trying to be positive about this because it gives me time to get up
> on .Net stuff so I'll be ready when they DO start hiring.

totally agree. and these smaller companies are what i prefer. you often
having a better chance at autonomy to create a really good piece of
software. i've worked as a single-man team, small 3-5 man teams, and massive
50 member teams. i've worked where i have control of the architecure and
design and where some exec with no tech knowledge makes the call. smaller
companies just seem to allow you to actually create something that *works*.
> Unfortunately, I am nowhere near wise enough in the ways of .Net to start
> critiquing how they designed feature a, why they did b instead of c, etc.
> They clearly did not slap this stuff together over a weekend or two so I
> hesitate to start complaining until I've spent a lot more time with it.
> However I can strongly recommend the microsoft .net newsgroups. You can
> reach them over the web at:
>
>http://communities.microsoft.com/new...otnet&slcid=us
>
> or you can subscribe thru your email/newsreader as always. Under
languages
> category is a Csharp group, there's about 25 newsgroups for the Framework
> and of course several groups dedicated to VisualStudio .Net. They've got
> some people that really know their stuff, including Microsoft employees so
> you can probably get answers to your questions there.

i will eventually check them out. right now the signal to noise ratio seems
quite low. also need to learn a bit more before i start asking questions
that could be easily answered in the docs. I just saw your post in here and
wanted to respond to something other than the H1B issue. On that point, I'm
mixed. Sure, I think some limits have to be applied. I was even starting to
spin up myself until I went and looked at Zazona to see some data on
Colorado. It seemed rather 50-50. Some companies do seem to be abusing the
system. I'm familiar with most of those companies by name and they have a
rep for producing crap anyway (not necessarily because of the H1Bs, just the
company itself). The other half of the companies seem to being paying very
comparable salaries so I know I'm not competeing on that level. Sure, the
limit should be lowered. If companies want to try to outsource, let them.
I've worked at places that try stuff like that. the commincation and time
barriers are huge obstacles. It's pretty short-sighted to try and apply it
to a creative effort. If that style of managment is at a company, I'd rather
not work there anyway: they have bigger problems coming up. In the end, I
don't much care whether I'm making 100K or 50k, as long as I'm doing
something challenging and am allowed to produce quality. That is what is
getting hard to find these days. Actually being able to find a place that
will let you make a solid, quality product.

Re: .Net

"Elena" <egermano@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3d2c37a6$1@10.1.10.29...
<snip>
> So what the heck are they whining about? Is it still "Boo Hoo, they
changed
> VB?" or "Boo Hoo, Visual Studio ought to cost $75" or have they moved on
> to something else?
>
Most VBers are still very bitter on the fact that VB.NET is not VB7 (i.e. an
upgraded version of VB6). But they don't seem to understand that VB6 will
die on its own anyway because the market share has shifted.

I still don't understand why people are so hung up on a programming tool?
You shouldn't be if you are a true professional developer. IMHO, all
programming tools are based on pretty much the same logics, and if you truly
understand programming, the learning curve should not be steep.

No offense, but I believe many of the VB programmers do not have a solid
programming foundation and do not have a CS or engineering discipline,
thanks to the RAD features. Therefore, shifting tools will be devastating
to them. Heehee, I hope I didn't start a flame war here.

It seems the only complaints on .NET is on the VB portion only. I have not
yet heard of any complaints on C# or ASP.NET. Does it tell you something?

Re: .Net

Sean,
This is not an area for technological discussion so I will only say that
Java is being used on all platforms - hand helds to mainframes. You will
find that VS.Net requires a pretty good machine too. Also don't compare free
IDEs to non-free ones. Full featured IDEs are going to require alot of resources.
It is not what you can expect of a general Java app. You should check
out Eclispe. It is much more comparable in speed. Actually you should check
out WSAD.

Java is being used in small corps - successfully. It is not an enterprise
only tool. This is a misconception and it needs to be combated. Will you
find Java much there? Probably not. I know at least a few who have developed
GUI Java apps and are deploying them successfully and easily on Windows,
Linux and OSX. I am finishing up converting a LARGE VB app to Java. The
conversion tool I used works, but it converted it very VBish and thus is
very inefficient. I have it runing on old Win 98 machines and it runs pretty
fast. And it is using Swing. I wouldn't run Netbeans on them. I sure wouldn't
run VS.Net on them either. Not sure I could run .Net apps on them at all
- at least not a version of my Java one.

As for requirements for getting hired - Unfortunately those doing the hiring
have little understanding of what it really takes. Requirements for "MS
technology" jobs are no less extreme.

I don't hate MS. I agree Sun is no less a 'bad boy' in many respects.
But Java IS NOT Sun. Allowing your love for one company and your hatred
for another will cloud your judgement. We cannot afford to be shorted-sighted
or have our judgement clouded especially in during this time.

I pointed out some issues and facts that might or might not weigh in on
what technology will succeed. You may not like Java tools, but just as many
don't like MS tools. Many think Java is slow and is enterprise only. This
has been shown to not be true. VB and C++ and C# and VB.Net can be slow
too. Bad code, bad architecture and inexperience are the usual suspects.
You will find slow Java code. The tool is NOT the problem.

VS.Net is ok with me, as a technology. But it limits me and my software
to one platform (not yet proven to be viably transferable to any other) and
to one vendor. Will I use it? Sure. Some things are platform specific
and thus it will be the best tool for the job. Some clients will demand
it.

Re: .Net

"simon" <substring0NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I still don't understand why people are so hung up on a programming tool?
>You shouldn't be if you are a true professional developer. IMHO, all
>programming tools are based on pretty much the same logics, and if you truly
>understand programming, the learning curve should not be steep.

I totally agree with you on this point but the job market does not. The
tool you work with translates directly to the job opportunities available
to you. I understand why some of the other posters complain that the MS/Java
discussion doesn't belong on a career board, but the way the hiring process
works - - you are defined by the programming tool you last worked with.
I've had very little luck convincing employers that "REAL" programmers are
not tied to tools. I could wave my Mensa membership card at them but I'm
sure it would have no effect. It's burned into their brains that people
come in technology flavors and to hire the wrong-flavored person would results
in months of non-productive wasted expense.